A complaint for false advertising has been filed against the company FitBit. A study, requested by the complainants, shows the unreliability of bracelets measuring heart rate.
” Check your heart rate at a glance and rate your effort to adjust your exercise in the moment ”Is what the Fitbit company offers with its FitBit Surge and Fitbit Charge HP connected bracelets. However, three complaints were filed in the United States against the American company. Its sensors are said to be unreliable in measuring heart rate.
The fact that FitBit exposes its bracelets as real measurement tools and not as simple connected objects poses a problem. By encouraging people to “Adjusting their exercise” according to the displayed rhythm, athletes can be pushed to go beyond their real limits, and therefore put themselves in danger.
Website The register reported that a study was requested by the plaintiffs, to assess the reliability of the PurePusle technology, used in both bracelets. It shows that the sensors of electronic bracelets would indeed tend to underestimate the real rhythm during a physical effort.
43 volunteers tested
The two scientists who responded to the complainants’ request, Edward Jo and Brett Dolezal, observed a significant difference between the actual rhythm of the heart, measured by an electrocardiograph (certified by health authorities), and that which the connected bracelets displayed during the physical exercise sessions.
The tests were done on 43 volunteers, and for some of them a difference was up to 23 beats per minute on the FitBit Surge model. The researchers also observed that a bracelet worn on each arm did not measure the same heart rate.
Questioned by doctors
According to the site numerama.com, the reliability of PurePusle technology was also questioned last April by emergency responders. They noticed, during the care of a patient suffering from a heart attack, a notable difference between the number of beats displayed on the electronic bracelet and that indicated by the medical devices.
However, the methodology employed by the two researchers may also pose a problem. The number of volunteers who participated in the study is small, and each has only been tested once.
.
